Send this to a friend

Airfare: According to gaming commission reimbursement and credit-card reports, the agency's staffers spent approximately $85,000 on flights in the U.S. and to destinations abroad between May 2012 and Jan. 1, 2014. In one example, a commission staffer took a one-way flight from Hong Kong to Boston priced at $7,257.

Treasurer Steve Grossman, responding to a Boston Business Journal report on lavish expense and travel spending at the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, on Friday delivered a withering critique of the agency’s practices and called for its top officials to immediately abide by clear rules approved by the commonwealth’s Inspector General.

Grossman’s comments, in which he called the gaming commission’s behavior “deeply concerning,” came hours after the BBJ published an analysis on the agency’s expense reports and related policies dating back to its inception in 2012. The analysis of hundreds of credit card statements and reimbursement reports highlighted charges at luxury hotels and top-rated restaurants in major cities throughout the world. The expenditures in many cases exceeded the per-diem amounts and related regulations that apply to employees at other Massachusetts agencies.

“I think it is fair to say that I will be letting the gaming commission know, in the strongest way possible, that this kind of spending undermines the public trust and, further, has the capacity to undermine the mission of the gaming commission itself,” Grossman said during a phone interview Friday. “That message will be expressed loudly and clearly.”

Grossman is among a field of candidates campaigning to be the state’s next governor.

Inspector General Glenn Cuhna said: “The Gaming Commission is a public agency. It was created by the Legislature to oversee the casino industry on the public’s behalf. Even though it does not have a line item appropriation in the budget, the commission and its staff should still establish and follow rules and standards that ensure public money is spent appropriately.” As part of its role in serving as a watchdog for fraud and abuse involving public funds, the state inspector general’s office has for roughly a decade been charged with defining the travel and spending rules that apply to state workers.

Gaming commission officials did not respond to Grossman’s comments. In earlier interviews with the BBJ, commission officials defended the agency’s spending. They said comparisons to travel and reimbursement practices at other state agencies are unfair, given the MGC’s compact timeline and the amount of due diligence needed to launch a multibillion-dollar industry in Massachusetts.

Commission officials also said some $15 million in outlays to date have been reimbursed to the MGC by casino operators as part of the application process for gaming licenses in the state.

Grossman, who did not review the specific spending reports and receipts highlighted in the BBJ report, said there is no defense of the commission’s spending practices as outlined.

“That argument doesn’t wash with me,” said Grossman, referring to the MGC’s assertion that its outlays are within reason since many of those costs are paid for by gaming-license applicants, and not Massachusetts taxpayers.

As documented in the BBJ report, examples of the commission’s extreme spending range from a one-way flight from Hong Kong to Boston for $7,257 to a $110 visit to a wine bar in Singapore to a $5,550-per-month housing allowance for top executives. Over the past 18 months, commission staffers spent approximately $85,000 on airfare, $61,000 on hotel accommodations and another $37,000 on meals, according to a BBJ review of more than 700 credit card charges and expense reimbursements.

Victor Matheson, an economics professor and gaming expert at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, said it is important to ensure that state gaming boards are sufficiently funded to perform their jobs independently. He said such independence, also known as “regulatory capture,” is needed to avoid potential undue influence from the gaming industry and entities seeking state gaming licenses.

Matheson said cases in which state gaming officials have repeatedly traveled to international locations are rare. He also was unaware of other state gaming boards accepting travel and meals reimbursements from gaming-license applicants.

“My sense is that it is at least somewhat unusual,” he said.

The gaming commission has differed from other Massachusetts agencies by operating without formal guidelines on the amounts and types of personal spending and travel permitted among its employees. Commission officials said they can operate outside of the state’s travel and expense guidelines because those rules only apply to agencies funded through the state budget. Rather, the commission was initially funded with a $15 million interest-free loan from the state’s rainy day fund, a debt that will be repaid as the state sells gaming licenses and collects operating fees from gaming companies, MGC officials said.

The MGC's practices and policies do not perfectly align with those of peer organizations in other states. For example, Richard McGarvey, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, said the Keystone State’s gaming officials always have abided by the same spending and travel guidelines that apply to other state agencies. He said transparency is paramount to the board’s operations, adding that all expense and reimbursement reports are available to the public online.

Much like the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, the PGCB was founded as a so-called “independent agency” intended to generate operating revenue from gaming operators and license fees. And McGarvey said the Pennsylvania gaming board’s investigation costs and related due diligence are reimbursed by gaming-license applicants and casino operators.

Treasurer Grossman said he has no regulatory role when it comes to the commission’s operations, even though he did appoint veteran state employee Enrique Zuniga to be one the board’s five commissioners. He said he is confident the board’s policies will be further scrutinized to improve transparency and better align its employee travel and expense rules with those at other Massachusetts agencies.

“I just can’t stand by and watch this kind of spending,” Grossman said. “They (the commission) don’t seem to have a very high degree of sensitivity ... You’ve got to show respect to the taxpayer.”

Related links:

Industries:

Comments

If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.